Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, in the matter of Docram Pty Ltd ACN 095 643 299 v Docram Pty Ltd ACN 095 643 299

[2008] FCA 1154

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, in the matter of Docram Pty Ltd ACN 095 643 299 v Docram Pty Ltd ACN 095 643 299 [2008] FCA 1154

IN THE MATTER OF DOCRAM PTY LTD ACN 095 643 299
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION v DOCRAM PTY LTD ACN 095 643 299

QUD 169 OF 2008

DOWSETT J
24 JULY 2008
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD 169 OF 2008

IN THE MATTER OF DOCRAM PTY LTD ACN 095 643 299

BETWEEN:	DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Plaintiff
AND:	DOCRAM PTY LTD ACN 095 643 299 Defendant

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	24 JULY 2008
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation to wind up the company Docram Pty Ltd.  When the matter was called Mr Philip Markovitch sought to appear on behalf of the company.  He claims to be a director.  The company is, apparently, a family company involving him and his son.  It is part of a larger family group of companies, many of which companies are creditors of Docram.  The only other creditors are the Commissioner and Docram’s accountant.  The Deputy Commissioner’s debt represents a tax liability accumulated over some time although it seems that amounts have been progressively paid.  Nonetheless, the amount of $143,000 remains owing.  The company was a building company.  It is not trading and is admittedly insolvent. 

2. I have not given Mr Markovitch leave to appear on behalf of the company.  He has not demonstrated his authority to do so.  However he has explained the company’s position as he understands it.  He says that he, personally, was not aware of these proceedings until 9 July 2008.  It seems that the other director, his son, must have been aware of them as early as 2 July 2008.  The statutory demand was sent to the registered office of the company.  It is said, although there is no evidence to this effect, that it was not received by the directors at any appropriate time.  If that is so, then it seems to be their own fault. 

3. The only basis upon which Mr Markovitch suggests that an order ought not be made is that he and the other family companies may propose a scheme of arrangement or deed of company administration pursuant to which the Commissioner might be paid in instalments.  They have taken advice from an accountant.  He seems not to have been able to formulate a final proposal on the material available to him.  Any adjournment would therefore be for the purpose of seeing whether some sort of proposal could be developed.  If that was to be done, it ought to have been done in the period since the service of the statutory demand, if not at some earlier stage.  The directors of the company may not have been aware of the demand and of subsequent proceedings, through their own oversight or that of other officers of the company, but that is not to the point.  Were there a more concrete proposal at this stage, I may have been willing to consider it. 

4. In the circumstances, I decline the application for an adjournment.  There will be an order in terms of the draft.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:       7 August 2008

Solicitor for the Plaintiff:	Ms A Walker of Australian Taxation Office Legal Services Branch
Counsel for the Defendant:	The Defendant did not appear

Date of Hearing:	24 July 2008
Date of Judgment:	24 July 2008